Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Up until recently, I have generally believed that the existence of Jews had not only benefited the world, but has greatly benefited the United States. If you look at the contribution of Jews in this country, in medicine, the arts, science etc., I think it is clear our quality of life in this country would be greatly diminished if so many Jews had not immigrated here. I have always believed that the US has been really lucky that most Jews have chosen this country as the place to emigrate to. I also believe that the Jews in the Republican Party hold a critical role, because with out them, the party might be totally controlled by the Christian Conservatives. The Republican Jewish Coalition in California has contributed greatly to pushing the Republican Party in California towards a rational and sensible path.

However, recent information has come to light that has made me question the benefit of Jewish influence in our society. Although some of you have not admitted this yet, it is clear that I am the epicenter of the Universe.

When I was born, my father’s best friend (who happens to be a Jewish doctor) convinced my father that I should be circumcised. That from a hygienic stand point this was a good thing. However, I was reading an article that said that that circumcision not only does not provide any real health benefits, but that the victim of the act does not enjoy sex as much. In other words, because of the loss of the foreskin, circumcised males do not derive as much pleasure from sex as their uncircumcised brethren. !!!!!!!!!.

Now I am beginning to question the benefits of Jewish influence in this country. Any thoughts before I start organizing a pogrom?

My son is uncircumised. I hope to be able to live vicariously through him to get some insight into the benefits of that state, which was cruelly denied to me.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Sure, as long as the person to die has actually expressed the desire.

I think on this point you differ from many of the people that were so upset about this case. I don't think Delay and friends really cared if she expressed a desire to die. From their perspective only God can decide if some one should die and therefore humans should do everything they can to protect and preserve life under all circumstances. Actually with Delay it is just innocent life (he is a pro-death penalty protestant) but with Catholics like Jeb Bush, it is all life, even non-innocent life.

I think these people have fallen prey to the slippery slope argument. They fear that if you let someone who is in intense pain to choose to die that this could lead to a culture of death and pretty soon you will have another holocaust. That is why you should not make decisions on what is just or unjust based on fear. I think everyone deep down believes that if someone lives everyday in intense pain, and there is no hope that the pain will ever stop, that they should be allowed to end their own life. I think peoples fear (like their fear of homosexuals) prevents them from seeing what is truly just and right in these circumstances.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think on this point you differ from many of the people that were so upset about this case. I don't think Delay and friends really cared if she expressed a desire to die. From their perspective only God can decide if some one should die and therefore humans should do everything they can to protect and preserve life under all circumstances. Actually with Delay it is just innocent life (he is a pro-death penalty protestant) but with Catholics like Jeb Bush, it is all life, even non-innocent life.

I think these people have fallen prey to the slippery slope argument. They fear that if you let someone who is in intense pain to choose to die that this could lead to a culture of death and pretty soon you will have another holocaust. That is why you should not make decisions on what is just or unjust based on fear. I think everyone deep down believes that if someone lives everyday in intense pain, and there is no hope that the pain will ever stop, that they should be allowed to end their own life. I think peoples fear (like their fear of homosexuals) prevents them from seeing what is truly just and right in these circumstances.

I am in agreement with pretty much everything you wrote. I respect where Jeb was coming from but it is not where I was coming from one. I am fine with assisted suicide if the assistee is making a conscous decision. I am fine with a living will that directs the plug or feeding tube to be pulled. I am not down with judicial interpetation of someone's wishes based on hearsay, even if it is the husband providing it. A spouse is not chattel. In the case, as W said, they should have erred on the side of life. Instead the state was complicit in murder.

What does the state say if the husband on his death were to say, "guess what, I lied. Suckers!". Err on the side of life, not in favour of a culture of death.

All that said, I have evolved to being against the death penalty. What happened in Illinois and elsewhere points to strongly that this is another area to "err", so to speak, on the side of life. Life imprisonment works for me......except for enemy combatants and treasoners, those filthy bastards aren;t worth the waste of time the due process considerations take.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Sure, as long as the person to die has actually expressed the desire. In the Schiavo case the state and the husband conspired to impose their culturalist of death will on her. I know for me, if I was in a coma, the last two people I would want to decide my fate, absent my express verifiable expression related to the same, would be my wife and the state. The former has millions to gain by my demise and the latter has the tax revenue from the introduction of those millions into the economy. BIG CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Especially in my home state where the culture of death is the prevailing perversity and the statehouse was stolen by a Fraudoire.

Hank, if I end in a Schiavo like state, please direct the relevant authorities to this post before they can kill again.

Since you've invoked me in a quasi-legal request I have to be frank. If your wife has a conflict, so would I. Anything she has, I can have anytime I ask. Several. Times. A. Night.

Ask sidd. He's impotent.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Since you've invoked me in a quasi-legal request I have to be frank. If your wife has a conflict, so would I. Anything she has, I can have anytime I ask. Several. Times. A. Night.

Ask sidd. He's impotent.

2. Thanks for getting my back on this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
2. Thanks for getting my back on this.

de nada mi amigo.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
de nada mi amigo.

what translation page do you use?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
what translation page do you use?

you're on the wrong track. Ms. Penske says the problem isn't what Mr. Penske does, it's what he doesn't do.

[Ty@50]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
My son is uncircumised. I hope to be able to live vicariously through him to get some insight into the benefits of that state, which was cruelly denied to me.

There has been some brain possesion software where you can step into another experience (almost exactly like Being John Malkovich- sans dumped on highway) developed in the last year. It's still beta test but maybe I can smuggle you somewhen the time cums (ha!). But the whole pyschological effect of being there for sonny's early experiences, we just don't know long term effects.

The uncertainty has really limited suggested uses. But given your existing abnormalities, I think the chances of you having any real additional harm are perhaps acceptable.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you're on the wrong track. Ms. Penske says the problem isn't what Mr. Penske does, it's what he doesn't do.

Yes, busted. BnB is her sock.

[Spanky]

Californian yachties driven barking mad by sea lion siege
By Andrew Gumbel in Newport Beach, California
Published: 09 October 2005
In most Californian coastal resorts, residents would kill for a regular glimpse of sea lions frolicking in the surf and barking with joy. In San Francisco and Monterey, they are tourist attractions. But in the conservative yachting town of Newport Beach, south of Los Angeles, the residents want to kill the sea lions. All summer, the sea lions have been clustering around the yachting harbour, flopping on boats to sunbathe, vomiting and defecating wherever they please and barking so much some residents say they haven't had a decent night's sleep for months. A month ago, 18 sea lions piled on to a vintage yacht, built in 1910, and sank it, to the fury of the absentee owner.

The boat-owners have petitioned the Harbour Commission, and the Harbour Commission has petitioned the City Council, but to no avail; the animals have been under special government protection since they came close to extinction 30 years ago, and nobody is allowed to touch them.

So a state of siege has been established. Many yacht-owners have tried to block the sundecks of their boats with chairs and kayaks. Others have temporarily moved their boats to other harbours. A few of the more enterprising residents have equipped themselves with squirt guns (for the sea lions) and sleeping pills (for themselves). And they have come up with many cunning plans: attacking the beasts with rubber bullets or firecrackers, blasting high-pitched sounds from underwater speakers, building a fake killer whale - an underwater scarecrow if you will - or employing a harbour hand to go around the boats and bang them with a stick.

The problem is that these ploys do not work. One attempt to deport some of the animals to an island off Santa Barbara, more than 100 miles to the north, ended in failure: the beasts were back within a week.

An estimated 400,000 sea lions frolic along the Pacific coast of the US, barely a generation after fears for their extinction led to the protective law. In Seattle nine years ago, three sea lions threatening the steelhead trout which move down the city's "fish ladder" - an ingenious device to help the fish swim upstream - were actually sentenced to death. A national outcry over this ostensible act of brutality led to a reprieve, cheered on by then-Vice President Al Gore: the three animals were adopted by SeaWorld in Orlando.

In most Californian coastal resorts, residents would kill for a regular glimpse of sea lions frolicking in the surf and barking with joy. In San Francisco and Monterey, they are tourist attractions. But in the conservative yachting town of Newport Beach, south of Los Angeles, the residents want to kill the sea lions. All summer, the sea lions have been clustering around the yachting harbour, flopping on boats to sunbathe, vomiting and defecating wherever they please and barking so much some residents say they haven't had a decent night's sleep for months. A month ago, 18 sea lions piled on to a vintage yacht, built in 1910, and sank it, to the fury of the absentee owner.

The boat-owners have petitioned the Harbour Commission, and the Harbour Commission has petitioned the City Council, but to no avail; the animals have been under special government protection since they came close to extinction 30 years ago, and nobody is allowed to touch them.

So a state of siege has been established. Many yacht-owners have tried to block the sundecks of their boats with chairs and kayaks. Others have temporarily moved their boats to other harbours. A few of the more enterprising residents have equipped themselves with squirt guns (for the sea lions) and sleeping pills (for themselves). And they have come up with many cunning plans: attacking the beasts with rubber bullets or firecrackers, blasting high-pitched sounds from underwater speakers, building a fake killer whale - an underwater scarecrow if you will - or employing a harbour hand to go around the boats and bang them with a stick.
The problem is that these ploys do not work. One attempt to deport some of the animals to an island off Santa Barbara, more than 100 miles to the north, ended in failure: the beasts were back within a week.

An estimated 400,000 sea lions frolic along the Pacific coast of the US, barely a generation after fears for their extinction led to the protective law. In Seattle nine years ago, three sea lions threatening the steelhead trout which move down the city's "fish ladder" - an ingenious device to help the fish swim upstream - were actually sentenced to death. A national outcry over this ostensible act of brutality led to a reprieve, cheered on by then-Vice President Al Gore: the three animals were adopted by SeaWorld in Orlando.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what's sad is that we'll never all meet unless we arrange it here. I know I'll meet you, Club, Spank and Diane in heaven, but Ty/Wonk/Rt/SS, anfd the rest of alphabet city? i can hear St. Peter now:

"oh, they're staying south of here."

Wrongo.

The most fervent "followers" of the baby jesus in our modern American body politic seem to focus on the Old Testament (and perhaps Revelations) to the exclusion of the Gospels. The Bible is pretty clear that Christ was a socialist.

[Indeed, one of Penske's earlier sig lines alluded to this concept.]

Fortunately for all of us, he's a big tent kind of guy.

S_A_M

Nonetheless

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Eminent domain to be used for new baseball stadium:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...0902-5838r.htm

Hell, yes, it is a public benefit. You ever been in RFK?

More so that a damn shopping mall.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Wrongo.

The most fervent "followers" of the baby jesus in our modern American body politic seem to focus on the Old Testament (and perhaps Revelations) to the exclusion of the Gospels. The Bible is pretty clear that Christ was a socialist.

[Indeed, one of Penske's earlier sig lines alluded to this concept.]

Fortunately for all of us, he's a big tent kind of guy.

S_A_M

Nonetheless

The comment that a rich man has the same chance of getting to heaven as a camel going through the eye of a needle is not the most Capitalist of statements I have ever heard.

Jesus was also not very big on money lenders or changers (banks). Not a very pro-capitalist way of thinking either.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I never said killing was an absolute wrong. The only people that I know that have ever proposed something like this are pacifists and liberals - the same people that believe in moral relativism.

If you mean what you say here, I'm not sure what you think the term "moral relativism" means. I think that the lack of definition is hampering your conversation with Wonk -- though I'm really not sure why Wonk started this with Penske.

Your statement is not coherent. Moreover, think of the true pacifists you have known, (personnaly or though the media or history books) and consider whether you think they are actually moral relativists.

S_A_M

P.S. God told Bush to tell Clinton to tell me to say that.